tv [untitled] February 27, 2013 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
see if there is anything that you can do under the law to bring him to justice. this is just crazy. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay, seeing no other public comment, commissioners, i believe that the inspector duffy would like to come back? >> yes, please. >> yes, commissioners, just in answer to your question regarding the health department, we found something on the city website that is the health department do have a hazardous waste site assessment and mitigation and it is mainly for leaking underground storage types and developing in the historic landfill and sites with no contamination that be being mid gated on a basis, and i am not sure if that falls into that and i thought that i would share that information with you. we did actually note, inspector
duffy he did get into the property and is you a violation, and they were breaking up concrete pads as well. and i believe then that we did issue a permit for temporary shoring since the last hearing. just wanted to add that. >> thank you.. >> mr. duffy one was issued. >> we issued one and another one for doing excavating and that was after the hearing as well. >> the nov for the paint, was for not testing? >> well, they were removing, they were doing exterior lead, disturbing the paint on the exterior of the building like without the proper procedures. so they were... they didn't have any tarps down and there is a whole ordinance in our building code about that and when the inspector from our led
abatement program went there and they gave them a $2500 penalty. >> in terms of that process, but has it been proven that it was lead paint. >> it could be. >> but the nov related to not following the appropriate process. >> correct, that is right. >> yes. mostly mitigation, taps, etc.. >> and when the gentleman mentioned earlier how often is sfpd called in to enter? >> i have working there 14 years and my experience 2 or three times i have heard of it happen and donald is part of that in bay view hunter's point and so he does work closely with the police department and he knows them pretty well there and i think that there is an ongoing thing, but certainly from an inspection point of view, not getting into a building and being harassed and it does happen very often and
once every ten years maybe. >> thank you, inspector. >> thankfully it does not happen. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> do you have questions for them? >> i guess that it is me. >> the whole matter, before us is extremely disturbing, to say the least. i think that as one gentleman mentioned this board gave them the free pass. to say the least, and from that point on, the permit holder has decided to basically cowboy through every law that we have in the city to going through
the dbi putting public safety at risk, public health. i feel and this is a very difficult case, the result of having a rehearing, what will that do? i feel that something needs to be done. i mean the people in this neighborhood, at this point have not been afforded any protection. and every time that this permit has been told to do something he has down the other. the fact that the san francisco police department had to be called in just to access the building, is absurd to stop him and threatening him bodily harm enough that he felt that he had to have the san francisco
police department show up. to me, shows that this permit holder has basically decided that he is going to make the rules no matter what it is before him. i think that was very well put. i concur with the sentiments. and pending the sentiments of my fellow commissioners, i would move to grant the rehearing request. i would agree, maybe not all of it. yes, the original permit, was through a technical reading and procedure it is gaged to a certain permit verses the full
demo permit. however there are a number of things here that would without permits in contrary to some of the things that we brought up, and i'm not sure exactly what the resolution, i guess that is what a rehearing may do. or entail. but i would support that. >> okay. i would move to grant the rehearing, request. >> and on the particular date? >> any suggestions in >> probably one of the april dates would be the best, given that there is a need to give time for briefing and the board's calendar in march is so full >> april ten? does that work for the parties? >> april ten? >> okay.
>> and as for grounds, i believe that our standard for new information material to the dispute were undisputed in fact. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the president, to grant this rehearing, request and to set it for april tenth, on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is absent. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0, and this rehearing request is granted. which means that the original decision of the board is set aside, and a new rehearing on the merits shall take place april tenth. thank you. >> we will move on to item number five, appeal number 12-155. steven greenwald and rochelle
alpert verses the department of building inspection, the property at 60 presidio protesting the issue ans to jennifer chow and steve minisini of a permit to alter a building, application number 201201182486 expand the existing roof terrace, new window at top floor, family room number two and replace the existing single glazed window with new wood double glazed window and repair the stucco with integral colored stucco. >> this is back from last week, and the parties were here to present with revised plans but i am not sure if that is what we are about to hear. >> and should we, and i am not sure if we need to give seven minutes or three minutes if we are just giving an update? >> three minutes, please. >> okay. >> an update. more than you need? >> we just more than an update. >> perfect.
>> it is more than an update. >> let's go with 3. and if we have questions. >> okay. >> okay. members of the commission, last week we have high hopes that the party could come to an agreement in the set of plans that we can agree on to come before the start, however, first of all we received a survey finally of the property which was dated november 12th that showed that the walkway and the side yard does not all belong to the project sponsor and now, and what really is belonged to them. and that means of this and the building code. secondly, the set of plans that we have talked about is the architecture plans was not complete and not all of the windows were there and i think
that preliminary comment letter to their attorney and then... today did not change the roof plans, the roof deck at 5:00. i just before 5:00, i was handed a new plan asking me to review it and whether i could sign-off on it. and i most certainly cannot look at a set of plans, at 5:00. so i am prepared to present to this board the arguments on the merit of why the permit before you should be denied. >> is this okay. i would like to before you launched into argument hear from the other side on the status. and i don't know if that is out of order here. and then we will need the full seven minutes, i will be willing to go there because we did not hear that before.
>> okay. >> just the status. >> just the status, not an argument. >> okay on the mer mitts. merits. >> brian soriano for the permit holders, we did provide a full set of plans that they wanted so badly, despite that not being a requirement of the permit and those delivered before the weekend. we did not receive a draft of the settlement agreement that they wanted us to sign and i feel that they are looking to delay this thing and that is not in the best interest of the permit holders and it is not in the interest of fairness, equity and justice, and so we would like to have the hearing
present her arguments and we will respond to them >> okay. >> okay. >> i think that we should hear from mr. sanchez as well. >> yes tha, is okay. >> mr. sanchez, were you involved in this? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you. >> planning department, as last week, the board graciously continued the item one week to allow for the parties to meet and discuss and it is my understanding that a full set of plans was given to the appellant at 5:00 last friday. they reviewed it over the weekend that is when the issue of the survey came to their attention and any questions about the property line, and reality that was before the board tonight is just the permit for the roof deck, and so that, i thought was understood is that there would be supervised plans that were code complying for the roof deck, there were two issues, one the codes were not code complying, and two, given the location of the deck, it is on a non-complying portion of the
building and it required under our policy, a ten-day notice to the abuting properties as a notice to the roof deck and that was not done with the review. and we thought that continuing it, hopefully the parties would come to an agreement and there is also already a sign-off from the abuting property to the rear, so that the notification issue would be settled and the co-compliance issue would be settled. >> before the hearing today we did receive revised plans for the roof deck and i reviewed those briefly and the plans do comply with the planning code and made modification to the plans and i don't know if the appellant had time to review those, but rather than having this take much more of the board's time or having this be continued and i don't know if we are going to come to a resolution to the parties. the board could deny the permit, and have the applicant submit over, and right now the plans that were with the issues
permit were not code complying, you could deny the permit and they could refile and go and do the ten-day notice and go through that process rather than having the board hash it out tonight or continue it, so that is one of the options that the board may have and i want to be sure that you are aware of that option. >> thank you. >> the revised plans provided to you today are now code compliant in your cursory review. >> yes, the plans that i received this afternoon, i printed them out and the architect has full sized plans as well. they do appear to be code complying. >> and they do not require the ten-day notice? >> it will still require a ten day. >> yes. >> the ten day notice is required because a portion of it is on the building above the height limit and any time that you add a roof deck on a portion that is not complying in the site, set backs we do a
ten day cursecy notice and that was not done in this case. the two problems with the original plans, one they were not code complying and two, no notice. they corrected the complying and there is still the notification issue. >> thank you. >> anything else that mr. duffy also would like to speak on this? >> commissioners, just like that, i did get a look at the revised plans myself with the architect and from the building code point of view and the building department point of view we have separate existing plans and they are not in the sequence of the drawings but they are better they show the exact scope of excavation, they are moving in the right direction and the wording on the permit to consolidate the plans need to be figured out. but i thought that the plans were a huge improvement from what i had seen previous and it shows you the full scope of the
project from the $5 permits. >> and now conformed to the department standards of submission of the permit? s >> because it shows a full scope of working and elevations sections for plans which is what we like. >> you are referring to the set that you received less than an hour ago. >> i met with the architect this morning at dbi. >> okay. >> i got them this morning. he actually came in yesterday but i could not see him. >> okay. >> so, do you want, are you prepared then to proceed with the hearing on the merits? >> we have no choice. >> i think that, yeah... well, if the parties want to do the argument, although i frankly like the recommendation suggestion of the zoning administrator, you know if the parties want to do the
argument, go ahead. go ahead. >> we have a question. >> i'm not sure how would we go about approving a permit that violates the notification requirements? >> right. >> so, it is as any administrative policy for the roof decks and you know we were hoping that they could come together and have an agreement otherwise, they would have had the right to do a discretionary review before the planning commission and so i feel that is the best process for maybe the board to deny the permits. and to refile for the roof permit and go through the appropriate process. for the parties that we would satisfy the requirement and
give notice. we did not hear it last time. we have not heard it. >> as far as process is concerned. yes, miss barkly, we are ready to have you present your case. >> the form that is before this board have to say the procedural error one is that this is discussioned before and the other one is that the permit before you actually has a garage that was enlarged that should have had its notification. what we had agreed to was a set of plans that we cannot agree to. that is totally correct with all of the new windows, labeled and so that we know exactly the precise scope of the entire
project. yes, we will receive a set of plans and consolidate a set of plans, friday at 5:30, after i already left the office and went back and work on it over the weekend. and then, the roof plan was handed to me shortly before 5:00. the project sponsor was asked to please continue this matter so we can a correct set of plans that can be submitted to the building department. because one of the issues is that last time they said that they would submit a set of plans to replace them. however the landing of that staircase, goes beyond the common property line. so there are some issues that have to be worked through in terms of the property line issue that we have not reviewed and at times have to look at. because none of the plans that
i have seen as of today tells me the distance between the property line and the north side. and that is a pretty important piece of information for my client to have to deal with that. we also told them that we are definitely willing to sit down with them to come up with some kind of an agreement and using that space without putting a fence in the middle. but we have not heard back from them and so, at this point, i ask that you deny the current permit. and i am not actually sure that any of the plans that we were talking about today that i have received, all that is before, or that was given to the administrator, was actually filed as a revision to the building department. so that it is really nothing
before this board. and i think that the clean way to do it is to deny the permit. have them submit a complete set of consolidated permits, and would be happy to work with the projects sponsor to move the thing along. but, they cannot jaming us with short deadlines and saying, no we are not going to give you another week just to really sit down and sort all out of the issue all at once. >> counselor, the survey was only a boundary survey. >> it was only a boundary survey because they also did not show, normally you show the height of the roof, elevation, and that is not there. so, for us to try to figure out the non-conformity and what has to be done is difficult. because this is one of those sites where the height sort of goes up here.
so part of the area is conforming and part of the roof. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> brian soriano for the permit holders. it is disconcerting to hear the recitation from miss barkly, that we are not focusing on the roof deck expansion permit which is the purpose of the appeal that has been filed. she wants to latch on to a boundary issue from the survey that is not affected by that permit. the bottom line is that mr. sanchez says that these are not issued that can be addressed here, they are preexisting issues that go back 50 to 100 years and there will be away to discuss those issues but they don't support holding up this project which they have been able to do since december fifth by filing a general appeal, in fact it is really a two paragraph preliminary statement of appeal that never mentions
any detail about the roof expansion permit. they never filed a subsequent brief. they just have a general statement about bad actions that they want to attribute to the permit holder, but now we are here and having the hearing and they cannot identify any concern about that permit. since last week we have been providing plans that they want and worked with mr. sanchez from planning and from what i hear and understand, the revised plans they did bring it down while on the roof deck a bit so that they could be code compliant and the only issue that i am hearing is that there is this ten day notice requirement that would be triggered. now that should not really be the reason that we hold this up for any additional time. which is costing the project builders significant money. what mr. sanchez proposed if we could work something out that will safety the notice requirement. it is really an issue that has
no impact because as mr. sanchez told you and you have an exhibit 11 that were admitted. the only other neighbor that would be affected by the notice is that jackson street neighbor that signed off on this and that is exhibit l. and the remaining abuting neighbor is here. they were able to appeal it within the 15 days and it is the same party that we were willing to wave the notice requirement for if we came to some agreement. i am suggesting that seeing no permit in the appeal that has been filed by them, suspecting that this is just a dilatory tactic to get a settlement agreement on issues that are not properly before the board today, i think that the board has the ability to order that the revisions to the permit to modify the permit by the revisions that have been submitted to planning the architect and mr. pips is here if you have specific questions and the details of the
revisions as he can confirm is providing the roof deck elevations there is no concern, there is no satisfy concern, no code concern. there is a concern from these neighbors to try to force the project sponsors into signing in general settlement agreement that gives them rights. we are we have issue that had will require ongoing discussions we will engage them in ongoing discussions they should not be able to improperly use this board to gain leverage in a negotiation. so i ask the board to modify the permit, and let the project's owner move for toward. at this point they have been able to stop work on the project by filing those two paragraphs on december fifth and not supported it with any detail. we emailed them at 5:00 and they had the plans last friday and these were the revisions after meeting with planning and addressing any concerns that they had. also we addressed some of the
administrative concerns that alice and her partner had suggesting that this page should be in front of this page and this back at the back of this page. and nothing that had a legitimate concerns about what is being built under this roof deck expansion permit and so if you have specific questions, i will be happy to answer them. if you would like to see any of the detail that has been provided mr. fips is here with the plans and if you would like to corroborate and i do not speak for mr. sanchez, but i invite you to do that as well. if you go back and look at the appeal. just the preliminary appeal, back on december fifth and that is going to cause the project owner he could potentially lose the builder because there is no work that could be done there, he has to go to a job to do work and might be available to come back once this is hashed out. so i really imp lore you to look at the merits and i appreciate the concern of
looking at every nook and cranny. there is somewhere to meet before they can shanghai and hold hostage a property like this and cause significant money and delays, attorneys fees and architectural designs and time from their schedule. thank you. >> counselor, last week we had the question, who were you or where was the project in terms of its progress? i believe that the answer was everything has been done for the garage and most of the interior work. >> the excavation for the garage, yes. that was an issue that was brought up, that is not being addressed by this permit and that has been done, and what else is being held up, then?
other than the roof deck? >> there is required work to be done on the front stair landing, replacement of the window and that is really a problem, until we can get the permits cleared up we can't order the windows and for every week that we delay on ordering the windows it is about a month delay because of the lag time from the manufacturer and also additional permits that we need to apply for that we talked about last week that some of which we were given some permission to let the building execute the permits while the appeal is pending, but really the job means that some of these issues have to be addressed and approved before we can go on that work. >> mr. sanchez.
new. planning department. just to confirm the points, i did meet the architect this morning at ten and we reviewed the plan that they developed at the time that i asked where the plans were for the hearing tonight. which would just deal specifically with the roof deck and so, after that meeting, the architect did develop the plans that deal only with the permit at hand that deals with the roof deck and the concerns that are raised by the appellant and i can put it on the overhead and i basically just shading the property that there would be no other scope of work and it is like this on the facade there is no window work and what they had done to become code complying, they had an increase which would not be allowed above the height limit. so they reduced that down and have a full, open railing now, there is a small pit at